|
Den Hobson, Attorney at Law, 1600 North Broadway, representing
<br /> people of the Versailles apartments;
<br />Harry Carter, 3700 Plaza Drive;
<br />Barbara Echave, 3700 Plaza Drive, A-203;
<br />A1 Serrato, 2901 South Rene;
<br />Joshua A. Finkel, 3700 Plaza Drive, D-PH-1;
<br />Bert Horwitz, 3700 Plaza Drive.
<br />
<br />Speakers in opposition to the moratori~n were:
<br />
<br />Charlie Kerns, 3700 Plaza Drive;
<br />Deuglas Edwards, 1523 West Riviera Drive;
<br />Steve Swanson, Claremont, representing Gem Star Building, Irvine;
<br />Robert ~ckelson, 3823 Casselle, Orange;
<br />Jerry Allen, Parker Village;
<br />Den Drozd, 4952 Hemlock, Irvine;
<br />Dennis Tyler, 1020 North Broadway, representing Versailles Developers;
<br />Mickey Madden, 2319 North Rosewood.
<br />
<br />Mr. Echave presented a petition signed by 200 residents of Versailles on
<br />the Lake, in favor of the moratorium.
<br />
<br />Following Council discussion, MOTION was made by Bricken, seconded by
<br />Ward, to 1) instruct the Planning Commission to proceed with the process-
<br />ing of pending applications for condominium conversion bach on its own
<br />merits) in accordance with the Comission's normal procedure, and 2) in-
<br />struct the Planning Department to bring to the Council within thirty days
<br />a set of guidelines for condominium conversions, including criteria which
<br />would be applicable to the problems of renters in condominium conversion
<br />situations.
<br />
<br />AYES:
<br />NOES:
<br />
<br />Brandt, Bricken, Evans, Garthe, Ortiz, Ward, Yamamoto
<br />None CA 78.7
<br />
<br />ORAL CO~4JNICATION Planning Cormnission Chairman E. Winters
<br />EVERETT WINTERS suggested that consideration of con-
<br />CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS dominium conversion applications on
<br /> an individual basis does not enable
<br />the Co~nission to measure the overall impact of the conversions; that the
<br />pending applications involve a total of 3,000 units; and that the Planning
<br />Con~nission recommended the study to determine the long-term impact on the
<br />residential housing market in the City. CA 78.7
<br />
<br />RESOLUTIONS 79-36, 79-37, 79-38,
<br />79-39 - CO~PENSATION FOR CITY
<br />MANAGER; CITY A~'FORNEY; & ASSIS-
<br />TANT CITY ATTORNEY - ADOPTED
<br />
<br />MOTION was made by Yamamoto, seconded
<br />by Bricken, to adopt the following
<br />resolution:
<br />
<br />RESOLUTION NO. 79-36 - A resolution of the City Council of the City
<br />of Santa Ana fixing and establishing the compensation for the office
<br />of City ~lanager of the City of Santa Aha, effective February 20, 1979,
<br />and repealing Resolutions inconsistent herewith.
<br />
<br />AYES:
<br />NOES:
<br />
<br />Brandt, Bricken, Evans, Garthe, Ortiz, Ward, Yamamotb
<br />None CA 50.1
<br />
<br />MOTION was made by Yamamoto, seconded by Bricken, to adopt the following
<br />resolution:
<br />
<br />RESOLUTION NO. 79-37 - A resolution of the City Council of the City
<br />of Santa Ana amending Resolution 77-84 and Resolution No. 78-104 to
<br />adjust the compensation fixed and established for the office of the
<br />City Attorney.
<br />
<br />AYES:
<br />NOES:
<br />
<br />Brandt, Bricken, Evans, Garthe, Ortiz, Ward, Yamamoto
<br />None CA 50.1
<br />
<br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
<br />
<br />68
<br />
<br />FEBRUARY 20, 1979
<br />
<br />
<br />
|